Why I am not a Christian

[Whaleboy]

If you can conceive the absence of a supernatural deity then you can also conceive the presence of one.

While I think that logic can be used out of context to justify or refute anything, in context that is not the case and of course the universe is a context. As a result, I do not concur with your argument, by which one could also justify that my phone is conscious or that the earth is composed of four elements. I think it's perfectly possible to establish a logical framework, indeed for the most part it has already been done so, in which metaphysical/cosmological arguments may fall. I refer specifically to the notion of infinity, whereby if God is supposed to be infinite then that ascribes certain properties that we can test as we would a theory. To cut a long story short, ability to reason God =| ability to reason atheism.

There is no way to prove either existense or non-existense of a deity. That is why atheism seems silly to me.. Unless you are telling me that you have 'faith' that there is no God. But that makes you just as dogmatic as those who have faith in a God..

That would place faith and atheism, and the likes of creationism and evolution, as dualistic, while that is not the case. Atheism is no more silly in that respect than evolution, accretion or the big bang theory, indeed analogous to that. That you scientifically accept it on a contingent basis seems given.

If there was a similar body of people with whom I could be involved that shared my beliefs in existential humanism, I would also socialize with them, however those people are difficult to find ...

Paris

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Then Jesus sure wasted his time with all those parables and lessons in morality.

Out of a pious hope this was intended as more than a jab at I cannot tell what, I'd like to ask you to expland a bit of this. Just how could how we define the term 'Christian' affect the meaningfulness of Jesus of Nazareth's activities?

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


While I think that logic can be used out of context to justify or refute anything, in context that is not the case and of course the universe is a context. As a result, I do not concur with your argument, by which one could also justify that my phone is conscious or that the earth is composed of four elements. I think it's perfectly possible to establish a logical framework, indeed for the most part it has already been done so, in which metaphysical/cosmological arguments may fall. I refer specifically to the notion of infinity, whereby if God is supposed to be infinite then that ascribes certain properties that we can test as we would a theory. To cut a long story short, ability to reason God =| ability to reason atheism.

Your examples of the phone and earth are not relevant to my argument. I'm suggesting that before you consider questioning anything about the properties of things like a phone or the earth or God, you must consider a thing's existense (or non-existence). Everything has that most basic denominator - it exists or it doesnt exist. How can you argue against that? So, any atheist who claims a Creator does not exist, introduces the possibility of a Creator in his claim.

[Whaleboy]

Ummm, that's basic existentialism (existence precedes essense) but I'm afraid I cannot see how it applies in anything except the scientific provisional sense, which has already been covered. It's typical value is only in refuting absolutism or dogmatics, thus accepting the possibility of a contrary position, while not explicitely allowing for it, as is the case here. Still a good counter, you're certainly thinking along the right lines, we may not agree but it's all good!

[Odin]

Originally posted by bfg9000
There is no way to prove either existense or non-existense of a deity.

Scientists use the concept of Parsimony, or Ockam's razor: the simplests explainations that fit the data are usually the correct ones, and the existance of a higher power with no evidence of it's existance is an unneeded complication according to Ockam's Razor.

[Berzerker]

bayraven

are you saying that faith in Christ as the Messiah and parables on morality are mutually exclusive?

What I'm saying is that if all we need for salvation or to qualify as Christian is to "believe" in or say Jesus is Messiah, then he wasted his time lecturing people about morality. I mean, he could have just told people he was Messiah and be done with it.

LC

Out of a pious hope this was intended as more than a jab at I cannot tell what, I'd like to ask you to expland a bit of this. Just how could how we define the term 'Christian' affect the meaningfulness of Jesus of Nazareth's activities?

? I think its the other way around, Jesus' activities - lessons in morality - should affect the behavior of his followers.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
His church friends will probably call round at his home to check up on him. Possibly the vicar might pop round too. Meanwhile he'll probably be happy to know that he's still doing something he considers to be something good and productive other than the same old same old of modern 9-5 existance.

You don't need to belong to a religion to have people care about you, Laz.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bfg9000
If you can conceive the absence of a supernatural deity then you can also conceive the presence of one.. There is no way to prove either existense or non-existense of a deity. That is why atheism seems silly to me.. Unless you are telling me that you have 'faith' that there is no God. But that makes you just as dogmatic as those who have faith in a God..

Atheism does not necessarily mean "belief there is no God." Rather, it means "no belief in God." Bit of a difference.

Man, haven't we been over this time and time again?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by bayraven
Do athiests believe in a supernatural Evil? (supernatural anything?)

Generally, no. Atheism goes with skepticism. People have no evidence or proof of supernatural anything.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by bfg9000
I believe that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved.

That's quite all right, it's up to the proponents of an assertion to make their case. Otherwise it's just a bald assertion.

Originally posted by bfg9000
Would you admit that there are some aspects of the universe that you do not understand?

Sure. What's that got to do with an infinite, personal being?

Originally posted by bfg9000
Can you conceive the possibility of the existence of God as a part of the universe?

No, not as held by orthodox Christianity.

Originally posted by bfg9000
If you answered yes to both questions, then you have to admit God might exist.

Just like the Giant Dancing Banana or Brahma might exist.

Originally posted by bfg9000
In any case, if a God does exist, there is no way of knowing if he corresponds to the God image portrayed by any world religion.

Then it would be god, not God.

Originally posted by bfg9000
Religions have value as institutions which socialize people and provide security blanket to those who are freaked out by their own mortality.

So religions are good for screwing up people's minds, like drugs?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I'm being obtuse, partially deliberately. The point I want to make is that science has become the new dogma (with all the baggage that entails)- granted there are some who actually test the boundaries through experimentation but the vast majority don't.

That's because what lies at the core of various fields are used to be boundaries, well tested by experiments carried out in the past. We accept these experiments as true - if you don't, you can repeat them yourself.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Atheism is a faith that doesn't convince me any more than the other strands. Yes- I call it a faith, because I think for most atheists it's an apt term.

Lack of a belief in a deity or a group or deities is a faith? That's going to be hard to demostrate, Laz. Especially when "faith" denotes a blind acceptance of something for which there's no proof or evidence in this context.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The propensity to seek for answers to the big questions, to believe and to have faith, is a key part of what makes us human.

You maybe talking about belief or confidence, but not faith as in religion type blind belief.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
The rest of UR's reply seems to be mostly ad hominems of some sort. Something about crutches? Well, turn it around. You have a broken foot, but you won't take the crutches. You're a complete man in and of yourself, after all. So you keep hobbling around unaided. And every time your foot goes crunch, and you wince, and everybody else winces to hear it, you scorn the weaklings who don't realize that pain like that is just in the nature of life. It's all in your perspective. So drop it. I realize I've started to get snippy in my last couple posts, and I'm sorry. Let's try to keep cool though.

My point is there's no evidence that you have a broken foot. You don't feel the pain. You don't need to hop about on the other foot. It's just that some people came along and told you that you do.

It's absurd that you assert that we cannot rely on human rationality. What else can we rely on - some sayings recorded in a book centuries in the past? How could we tell if those sayings are true if we can't rely on our own judgement? You can't. How do you call if your particular holy book has the truth while other ones don't? You can't. It's all very arbitrary, thus illogical.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Lack of a belief in a deity or a group or deities is a faith? That's going to be hard to demostrate, Laz. Especially when "faith" denotes a blind acceptance of something for which there's no proof or evidence in this context.

It strikes me that atheism can go waaaaaaaay beyond mere absence of belief. After all, just look at some of the evangelical atheistic zealots on this very forum. It's a faith, a creed and a dogma.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You maybe talking about belief or confidence, but not faith as in religion type blind belief.

I think you'll find I'm talking about all three, but very much more so the religious faith.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You don't need to belong to a religion to have people care about you, Laz.

That's true. However millions of people have found it helps- and it demonstrates how religion can help the man on crutches.